Graduate studies at Western
Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):757-774 (2013)
|Abstract||We live in a world in which scientific expertise and its epistemic authority become more important. On the other hand, the financial interests in research, which could potentially corrupt science, are increasing. Due to these two tendencies, a concern for the integrity of scientific research becomes increasingly vital. This concern is, however, hollow if we do not have a clear account of research integrity. Therefore, it is important that we explicate this concept. Following Rudolf Carnap’s characterization of the task of explication, this means that we should develop a concept that is (1) similar to our common sense notion of research integrity, (2) exact, (3) fruitful, and (4) as simple as possible. Since existing concepts do not meet these four requirements, we develop a new concept in this article. We describe a concept of epistemic integrity that is based on the property of deceptiveness, and argue that this concept does meet Carnap’s four requirements of explication. To illustrate and support our claims we use several examples from scientific practice, mainly from biomedical research|
|Keywords||Epistemic integrity Research integrity Scientific integrity Deception Biomedical research Explication|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Carl Mitcham (2003). Co-Responsibility for Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):273-290.
Felice J. Levine & Joyce M. Iutcovich (2003). Challenges in Studying the Effects of Scientific Societies on Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):257-268.
Margot Iverson, Mark S. Frankel & Sanyin Siang (2003). Scientific Societies and Research Integrity: What Are They Doing and How Well Are They Doing It? Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):141-158.
Melissa S. Anderson & Joseph B. Shultz (2003). The Role of Scientific Associations in Promoting Research Integrity and Deterring Research Misconduct. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):269-272.
Kenneth D. Pimple (2002). Six Domains of Research Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):191-205.
Barbara Mishkin (1999). Scientific Misconduct: Present Problems and Future Trends. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):283-292.
Stéphanie Ruphy (2006). "Empiricism All the Way Down": A Defense of the Value-Neutrality of Science in Response to Helen Longino's Contextual Empiricism. Perspectives on Science 14 (2):189-214.
J. S. Youngner (2003). Promoting Research Integrity at the American Society for Microbiology. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):215-220.
Chris B. Pascal (1999). The History and Future of the Office of Research Integrity: Scientific Misconduct and Beyond. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (2):183-198.
Paul J. Friedman (1996). An Introduction to Research Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4):443-456.
Gerald Holton (2005). Candor and Integrity in Science. Synthese 145 (2):277 - 294.
Sara R. Jordan & Phillip W. Gray (2013). Research Integrity in Greater China: Surveying Regulations, Perceptions and Knowledge of Research Integrity From a Hong Kong Perspective. Developing World Bioethics 13 (3):125-137.
Greg Scherkoske (2012). Could Integrity Be An Epistemic Virtue? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (2):185-215.
Justin Biddle (2007). Lessons From the Vioxx Debacle: What the Privatization of Science Can Teach Us About Social Epistemology. Social Epistemology 21 (1):21 – 39.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-10-06
Total downloads1 ( #291,948 of 722,935 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,935 )
How can I increase my downloads?